 |
 |
Bob , "Robert A. Fink, M. D." wrote:SERV.UTORONTO.CA > > > If this is correct, then what about the fact that a human fetus, at > > > about 8 weeks' gestation, has a recordable EEG (and, as our > > > technology gets better, maybe even earlier!). If that collection of > > > "human cells" was > > > > You now are talking of human fetus , at about 8 weeks'gestation and so > > far we were talking of embryos . > > > The "point of division" (8 weeks gestation) for the name change from > "embryo" to "fetus" is artificial, in my view, when it comes to EEG > activity. I can't remember enough of my embryology to recall when > the neural tube of the embryo differentiates into a "brain"; but I > suspect that we will eventually be able to get an electrical signal from > an embryo less advanced than 8 weeks. I hope you agree with me that a embryo in his undifferentiated cells stage DO NOT has brain and it would be impossible to run or detect any EEG activity . This fact is important because is at this stage that the cells are most useful to research to find a cure of the so many terrible diseases and bring "real life" to those that suffer them. > The debate about "blastulae" on this List is interesting, but, I think, > not significant when related to my own concerns. It may be true that a > "blastula" does not have a functioning human brain; and, if so, *may* > be considered "fair game" for "research"; BUT, it is rather the > *concept* (of creating a human being solely for the sake of using it > for research or the treatment of other human beings) that disturbs me. > This is the "slippery slope" that I repeatedly speak of in this debate. > > Once an unborn human being can be described as a "thing", a "mass > of tissue"; or, as the current medical euphemism states, "products of > conception", you can do what you will to it, and then, as time goes on > and we get more and more desensitized, the same logic can be applied > to more "advanced" humans. I can conclude that our difference in points of view remains in what, each one consider , or define , may be called a human being. I still keep my view as considering an early embryo as only a group of undifferentiated human cells (as much as the spermatozoids and ovules are human cells) and not a human being.. > This is why, when a country goes to > war with another country, there is a tendency to label the enemy as > "gooks", "Japs", "Krauts", etc. It is easier to kill a "thing" than > another human being. Most true and I agree with you . :-) Best and cheers, Joao Paulo - Salvador,BA,Brazil [log in to unmask]